public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Cc: oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
	 ying.huang@intel.com, feng.tang@intel.com,
	fengwei.yin@intel.com
Subject: Re: [jlayton:mgtime] [xfs]  4edee232ed:  fio.write_iops -34.9% regression
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 16:16:30 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <44cb23219682cf29b1a8b33b886738389eee7557.camel@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202406141453.7a44f956-oliver.sang@intel.com>

On Fri, 2024-06-14 at 14:24 +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> kernel test robot noticed a -34.9% regression of fio.write_iops on:
> 
> 
> commit: 4edee232ed5d0abb9f24af7af55e3a9aa271f993 ("xfs: switch to multigrain timestamps")
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/jlayton/linux.git mgtime
> 
> testcase: fio-basic
> test machine: 64 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6346 CPU @ 3.10GHz (Ice Lake) with 256G memory
> parameters:
> 
> 	runtime: 300s
> 	disk: 1HDD
> 	fs: xfs
> 	nr_task: 1
> 	test_size: 128G
> 	rw: write
> 	bs: 4k
> 	ioengine: falloc
> 	cpufreq_governor: performance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202406141453.7a44f956-oliver.sang@intel.com
> 
> 
> Details are as below:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> 
> 
> The kernel config and materials to reproduce are available at:
> https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240614/202406141453.7a44f956-oliver.sang@intel.com
> 
> =========================================================================================
> bs/compiler/cpufreq_governor/disk/fs/ioengine/kconfig/nr_task/rootfs/runtime/rw/tbox_group/test_size/testcase:
>   4k/gcc-13/performance/1HDD/xfs/falloc/x86_64-rhel-8.3/1/debian-12-x86_64-20240206.cgz/300s/write/lkp-icl-2sp9/128G/fio-basic
> 
> commit: 
>   61651220e0 ("fs: have setattr_copy handle multigrain timestamps appropriately")
>   4edee232ed ("xfs: switch to multigrain timestamps")
> 
> 61651220e0b91087 4edee232ed5d0abb9f24af7af55 
> ---------------- --------------------------- 
>          %stddev     %change         %stddev
>              \          |                \  
>       0.97 ±  3%     -30.7%       0.67 ±  2%  iostat.cpu.user
>  2.996e+09           +51.5%   4.54e+09        cpuidle..time
>     222280 ±  4%     +44.7%     321595 ±  4%  cpuidle..usage
>       0.01 ±  5%      -0.0        0.01 ±  6%  mpstat.cpu.all.irq%
>       0.97 ±  3%      -0.3        0.66 ±  2%  mpstat.cpu.all.usr%
>      88.86           +27.3%     113.13        uptime.boot
>       5387           +28.4%       6916        uptime.idle
>       2.98 ±  3%     -10.9%       2.65 ±  2%  vmstat.procs.r
>       3475 ± 10%     -18.6%       2830 ±  6%  vmstat.system.cs
>       4.65 ± 43%      -2.7        1.97 ±143%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp._free_event.perf_event_release_kernel.perf_release.__fput.task_work_run
>       4.65 ± 43%      -2.7        1.97 ±143%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp._free_event
>       3.33 ± 76%      -2.4        0.90 ±141%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt
>       3.33 ± 76%      -2.4        0.90 ±141%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt
>     769.93            +9.4%     842.10        proc-vmstat.nr_active_anon
>       3936            +2.1%       4020        proc-vmstat.nr_shmem
>     769.93            +9.4%     842.10        proc-vmstat.nr_zone_active_anon
>     269328           +20.8%     325325 ± 11%  proc-vmstat.numa_hit
>     203054 ±  2%     +27.6%     259008 ± 14%  proc-vmstat.numa_local
>     297923           +16.3%     346459        proc-vmstat.pgalloc_normal
>     181868 ±  2%     +30.2%     236868        proc-vmstat.pgfault
>     173268 ±  3%     +27.2%     220312        proc-vmstat.pgfree
>       9141 ±  7%     +23.5%      11288 ±  4%  proc-vmstat.pgreuse
>       0.02 ± 26%      +0.1        0.10 ±  6%  fio.latency_10us%
>      99.87            -8.4       91.43        fio.latency_2us%
>       0.11 ± 20%      +8.4        8.47        fio.latency_4us%
>      46.16           +53.3%      70.78        fio.time.elapsed_time
>      46.16           +53.3%      70.78        fio.time.elapsed_time.max
>      35.68           +66.7%      59.50        fio.time.system_time
>       4940           +52.6%       7538        fio.time.voluntary_context_switches
>       2857           -34.9%       1859        fio.write_bw_MBps
>       1176           +64.4%       1933        fio.write_clat_90%_ns
>       1200           +83.1%       2197        fio.write_clat_95%_ns
>       1528           +46.6%       2240        fio.write_clat_99%_ns
>       1167           +62.2%       1893        fio.write_clat_mean_ns
>     731537           -34.9%     476002        fio.write_iops

I've been trying for several days to reproduce this, and have been
unable so far. Is this the same value as "write.iops" in the json
output? That's been my assumption, but I wanted to check that first.

That said, I'm only getting ~500k iops at best in this test with the
rig I have, so it's possible I need something faster to show it.


>       0.06 ±  6%     -25.5%       0.04 ±  5%  perf-stat.i.MPKI
>       0.91 ±  3%      -0.2        0.67 ±  3%  perf-stat.i.branch-miss-rate%
>   27659069 ±  3%     -28.0%   19920836 ±  4%  perf-stat.i.branch-misses
>     822504 ±  5%     -25.2%     615111 ±  6%  perf-stat.i.cache-misses
>    7527159 ±  6%     -26.9%    5499750 ±  3%  perf-stat.i.cache-references
>       3394 ± 11%     -18.8%       2756 ±  7%  perf-stat.i.context-switches
>       0.46 ±  2%     -13.0%       0.40        perf-stat.i.cpi
>  5.727e+09 ±  2%     -12.3%   5.02e+09        perf-stat.i.cpu-cycles
>      74.31            -3.0%      72.05        perf-stat.i.cpu-migrations
>       2.31           +13.1%       2.61        perf-stat.i.ipc
>       2905 ±  2%      -7.2%       2695 ±  2%  perf-stat.i.minor-faults
>       2905 ±  2%      -7.2%       2695 ±  2%  perf-stat.i.page-faults
>       0.07 ±  6%     -25.7%       0.05 ±  5%  perf-stat.overall.MPKI
>       1.18 ±  3%      -0.3        0.87 ±  2%  perf-stat.overall.branch-miss-rate%
>       0.48 ±  2%     -12.9%       0.42        perf-stat.overall.cpi
>       6992 ±  6%     +17.1%       8190 ±  5%  perf-stat.overall.cycles-between-cache-misses
>       2.09 ±  2%     +14.7%       2.40        perf-stat.overall.ipc
>      16640           +53.3%      25504        perf-stat.overall.path-length
>   27090197 ±  3%     -27.4%   19666246 ±  4%  perf-stat.ps.branch-misses
>     805963 ±  5%     -24.6%     607413 ±  6%  perf-stat.ps.cache-misses
>    7402971 ±  6%     -26.4%    5446622 ±  3%  perf-stat.ps.cache-references
>       3329 ± 11%     -18.2%       2723 ±  7%  perf-stat.ps.context-switches
>  5.616e+09 ±  2%     -11.7%  4.956e+09        perf-stat.ps.cpu-cycles
>       2843 ±  2%      -6.5%       2657 ±  2%  perf-stat.ps.minor-faults
>       2843 ±  2%      -6.5%       2657 ±  2%  perf-stat.ps.page-faults
>  5.584e+11           +53.3%  8.558e+11        perf-stat.total.instructions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disclaimer:
> Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided
> for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software
> design or configuration may affect actual performance.
> 
> 

Thanks!
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>

  reply	other threads:[~2024-06-20 20:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-06-14  6:24 [jlayton:mgtime] [xfs] 4edee232ed: fio.write_iops -34.9% regression kernel test robot
2024-06-20 20:16 ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2024-06-21  2:47   ` Oliver Sang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=44cb23219682cf29b1a8b33b886738389eee7557.camel@kernel.org \
    --to=jlayton@kernel.org \
    --cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
    --cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkp@intel.com \
    --cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
    --cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox